Quote
Originally posted by: starkiller
Well, George Tenet was put in charge of the CIA by Bill Clinton, if I recall. Bush felt he didn't need to make a change.
And, if this war was really about Oil...Bush could have signed an executive order to drill in the Anwar region of Alaska.
Bingo, dependancy on foreign oil reduced.
I'm no Clinton lover and maybe some of the blame falls to him, Bush is the one that gave the order to go to war its his resposibility as he is the leader. The leader is responsible for the conduct of those under him. And you just said Bush didn't feel the need the leadership of the CIA. Doesn't the fact that Bush left him in place put some of the blame on him? I just can't forgive Bush for making this claim on so little proof.
Quote
Originally posted by: starkiller
First, I believe I made a tiny slip. There are not 80+ "in" Iraq, but there are 80+ as members of the Coalition. Not all of them have troops in Iraq. Some are providing support behind the scenes.
From memory: Italy, Poland, Spain (until mid-March) Japan, South Korea, Australia (England)
From an unofficial website: ...its easier to post the URL: Coalition of the Willing
From a 1+ year old BBC article: Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and Uzbekistan.
many people question how legit this colition is. And the point is by not working with the U.N. but against it, he is creating unneeded enemies. And he is creating this image of a selfish America that won't respect internation law and only care about its own interests. And is increasing the hate that created these terrorist groups in the 1st place.
Quote
Originally posted by: starkiller
No, I cannot. But the task of rooting out terrorists is far harder than attacking Germany.
When WW2, we knew that Germans were in Paris, Berlin, Warsaw and Salzburg. It took us just under 4 years of brute-force, face-to-face (essentially) fighting to end the German threat.
With this war, we do not know where the enemy is. They could be in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran or living next door. The threat is far more hidden from view. If it was like Germany, this war would already be over.
If you have some special gift of divination that can find the terrorists, I'm sure the military would appreciate the help.
I didn't say it would be easy. I just believe that more could be done to get him. Bush has spent too much time,effort, and money getting Saddam and not enough on getting Bin Laden. If you ask me Bin Laden is the bigger threat. He is to blame for 9-11 not Saddam.
Quote
Originally posted by: starkiller
Let me use another example. It something I recall hearing people discuss last year.
You pull into a gas station. Gas is $1.02 per gallon. You fill up.
2 weeks later, you need more gas. WTF!!! Gas is up to $1.20 per gallon. Oh well, you need the gas, so you pay it.
Another 2 weeks. Gas is now $1.13 per gallon. You are now happy, because gas isn't $1.20 anymore.
But gas is still 11 cents higher than it was 4 weeks ago.
Gas now hovers around that $1.13 area. I've just been punked by the gas companies.
Now, instead of the price of gas, let's say we're talking about what the general public will tolerate in the media.
Horror before 1945 was The Wolfman, Frankenstein, Dracula. Practically no blood, gore or language and some violence.
Horror since 1980 is Nightmare on Elm Street, Jason, Freddy vs Jason, Child's Play, etc. Plenty of blood, gore, language and general violence.
People push the envelop, then someone has to push a little farther. Eventually, what the first people did to push the envelop is acceptable and commonplace. Its been a slow evolution.
I view the places this "envelop pushing" is going to be crude, harmful, unneccessary and not representative of the US general population.
However, you may view the same material to be perfectly harmless.
Its all a matter of perspective and remembering what things were like in the past.
I hope I'm adequately showing you what I meant this time.
Well its more clear this time. But as I said before how far is too far? and who decides? you? me? the government? And what about freedom of expression and the 1st Amendment. Finally and I'm sure you've been told this before but if you don't like Nightmare on Elm Street, Jason, Freddy vs Jason, Child's Play, etc. do what I do, don't watch 'em
I hate them too. and I love the classic horror movies. That was when you had to be able to act in order to play the monster effectivly. Quote
Originally posted by: starkiller
Kerry gives me the impression that he'd invite Osama over to the White House for milk and cookies to discuss some sort of arrangement to "end" the war, not unike how Clinton payed off North Korea to "stop its nuclear testing".
Kerry hasn't shown me anything that says he can do things in the war on terror any better than Bush.
I doubt that he'd invite Bin Laden over to the the White House for milk and cookies unless is was part of some sort of trap to capture Bin Laden. And for all we know Kerry may be no better than Bush but we won't know unless we give him a try. And he will have a better chance of gaining more world support than Bush who is so hated by many in the world. Just look at what some people think of him on this forum. Some think he is the next Hitler. Now I'm not saying he is but, if you thought Bush was the next Adolf Hitler would you be more likely to work with him and his country or against them? Would you be more likely to help find the terrorist that attacked his nation or would you try to help the terrorist escape capture?
Someone mentioned the environment. What, specifically, were you thinking of that Bush did that was anti-environment? With the War and the economy, blah, blah, blah, I haven't heard a thing on the environment for a long, long time.
for what I know Bush is not exactly regarded as a friend to the environment.
Quoteon this we agree, please stay Radic.
Originally posted by: starkiller
Really quickly, I also wanted to speak quickly to Switch Radic.
Yes, debates might not change people's minds, but debate can allow people who have not made up their minds to view both sides of an issue and make a more educated opinion.
There really is no need to leave the originaltrilogy.com forums. If you are uninterested and turned off by the non-Star Wars debate, to be quite honest, you don't need to open the Off Topic forum.
Stick to the General Discussion or Theatrical vs. Special Edition forums. We all confine our political discussions, when we have them, here.
Please stay and discuss SW topics with us.